You are on page 1of 6

JURISDICTION Republic Act No.

6713, Revised Penal Code, and the Civil Service


Law. Petitioner’s wife Clarita Depakakibo Garcia, and their three sons,
G.R. No. 162059 January 22, 2008 Ian Carl, Juan Paolo and Timothy Mark, all surnamed Garcia, were
HANNAH EUNICE D. SERANA vs. SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE impleaded in the complaint for violation of R.A. No. 1379 insofar as
OF THE PHILIPPINES they acted as conspirators, conduits, dummies and fronts of petitioner
in receiving, accumulating, using and disposing of his ill-gotten wealth.
FACTS: Petitioner Hannah Eunice D. Serana was a senior student of
the UP-Cebu. She was appointed by then President Joseph Estrada 2. On the same day, 27 October 2004, the Republic of the
on December 21, 1999 as a student regent of UP, to serve a one-year Philippines filed before the Sandiganbayan, a Petition with Verified
term starting January 1, 2000 and ending on December 31, 2000. On Urgent Ex Parte Application for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary
September 4, 2000, petitioner, with her siblings and relatives, Attachment against petitioner, his wife, and three sons, seeking the
registered with the SEC the Office of the Student Regent Foundation, forfeiture of unlawfully acquired properties.
Inc. (OSRFI).3 One of the projects of the OSRFI was the renovation of
the Vinzons Hall Annex.4 President Estrada gave P15,000,000.00 to 3. It was alleged that the Office of the Ombudsman, after
the OSRFI as financial assistance for the proposed renovation. The conducting an inquiry similar to a preliminary investigation in criminal
source of the funds, according to the information, was the Office of the cases, has determined that a prima facie case exists against Maj. Gen.
President. The renovation of Vinzons Hall Annex failed to Garcia and the other respondents therein who hold such properties for,
materialize.5 The succeeding student regent, Kristine Clare Bugayong, with, or on behalf of, Maj. Gen. Garcia, since during his incumbency as
and Christine Jill De Guzman, Secretary General of the KASAMA sa a soldier and public officer he acquired huge amounts of money and
U.P., a system-wide alliance of student councils within the state properties manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public
university, consequently filed a complaint for Malversation of Public officer and his other lawful income, if any.
Funds and Property with the Office of the Ombudsman.6 The
Ombudsman found probable cause to indict petitioner and her brother 4. The corresponding writ of preliminary attachment was
Jade Ian D. Serana for estafa and filed the case to the subsequently issued on 2 November 2004 upon the filing of a bond by
Sandiganbayan.7 Petitioner moved to quash the information. She the Republic.
claimed that the Sandiganbayan does not have any jurisdiction over
the offense charged or over her person, in her capacity as UP student 5. On 17 November 2004, petitioner (as respondent a quo) filed
regent. The Sandiganbayan denied petitioner’s motion for lack of merit. a Motion to Dismiss in Civil Case No. 0193 on the ground of lack of
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied with finality. jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over forfeiture proceedings under
R.A. No. 1379. On even date, petitioner filed the present Petition,
ISSUE: (1) Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over an raising the same issue of lack jurisdiction on the part of the
estafa case? (2) Whether or not petitioner is a public officer with Salary Sandiganbayan.
Grade 27?

DOCTRINE: (1) Section 4(B) of P.D. No. 1606 which defines the ISSUE:
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan reads: “Other offenses or felonies WON the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the forfeiture
whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by the proceedings under RA 1379; and,
public officials and employees mentioned in subsection (a) of this WON the Office of the Ombudsman has authority to investigate, initiate
section in relation to their office.” (2) While the first part of Section 4(A) and prosecute such petitions for forfeiture.
covers only officials with Salary Grade 27 and higher, its second part
specifically includes other executive officials whose positions may not RULING:
be of Salary Grade 27 and higher but who are by express provision of The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the forfeiture proceedings
law placed under the jurisdiction of the said court. under RA 1379 by virtue of an implied repeal. PD 1486 grants
exclusive jurisdiction and authority to Sandiganbayan and the Chief
RATIONALE: Special Prosecutor, hence the Courts of First Instance and Solicitor
(1) The rule is well-established in this jurisdiction that statutes should General cannot exercise concurrent jurisdiction or authority over such
receive a sensible construction so as to avoid an unjust or an absurd cases.
conclusion.33 Every section, provision or clause of the statute must be
expounded by reference to each other in order to arrive at the effect
contemplated by the legislature.34 Evidently, from the provisions of The office of the Ombudsman has authority to investigate, initiate and
Section 4(B) of P.D. No. 1606, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over prosecute such petitions
other felonies committed by public officials in relation to their office. after 25 Feb 1986 by virtue of the passing of PD 1606 expressly
Plainly, estafa is one of those other felonies. The jurisdiction is simply repealing PD 1486 and the subsequent passing of related PDs such as
subject to the twin requirements that (a) the offense is committed by PD 1607, 1630, 1860, 1861. The office of the Ombudsman was
public officials and employees mentioned in Section 4(A) of P.D. No. officially created by RA 6770 vesting its powers to investigate, initiate
1606, as amended, and that (b) the offense is committed in relation to and prosecute such petitions for forfeiture.
their office.
Hence, the petition was dismissed.
(2) Petitioner falls under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, even if
she does not have a salary grade 27, as she is placed there by
express provision of law.44 Section 4(A)(1)(g) of P.D. No. 1606 explictly Mohammad Ali vs.Hon. Garchitorena
vested the Sandiganbayan with jurisdiction over Presidents, directors
or trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled Facts:
corporations, state universities or educational institutions or
foundations. Petitioner falls under this category. As the Sandiganbayan Petitioner 2Lt. Arnel Escobal is a member of the Intellegence Group of
pointed out, the BOR performs functions similar to those of a board of the PNP. On March 1990, while he was conducting a surveillance
trustees of a non-stock corporation.45 By express mandate of law, operation on drug trafficking he somehow got involved in a shooting
petitioner is, indeed, a public officer as contemplated by P.D. No. 1606. incident resulting to the death of Rodney Nueca. Thereafter, petitioner
was arrested and tried in the RTC of Naga City Branch 21. Petitioner
Garcia vs Sandiganbayan filed a motion to dismiss the case
GR 165835

Petition for certiorari: Forfeiture of Ill-gotten/unexplained wealth Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the case reiterating that since he
committed the crime in the performance of his duty, the
FACTS Sandiganbayan has the exclusive jurisdiction over his case. Thus, the
case was transferred to the Sandiganbayan. However, respondent
1. On 27 September 2004, Atty. Maria Olivia Elena A. Roxas, Justice Garchitorena which is the presiding justice of the case ordered
filed a complaint against petitioner for violation of provisions in the
the return of the records and that the case be remanded back to its Reconsideration. In a Resolution issued, the Sandiganbayan sustained
court of origin, RTC 21. Ramiscal, et. al.’s contention that the AFP-RSBS is a private entity.
Hence, it reconsidered its earlier Resolution and ordered the dismissal
Petitioner then filed a certiorari. of their criminal case. Upon denial of its Motion for Reconsideration,
the prosecution filed the present special civil action for certiorari with
Issue: the Supreme Court.

Whether or not the presiding Justice of the Sandigan bayan committed Issue:
a grave abuse of his discretion amounting to excess or lack of Whether or not the AFP-RSBS is not a government entity.
jurisdiction in remanding the case back to the RTC?
Held:
Held: No, the AFP-RSBS is a government entity. It was created by
Presidential Decree 361. Its purpose and functions are akin to those of
No. According to the Supreme Court under P.D. 1606 as amended by the GSIS and the SSS, as in fact it is the system that manages the
R.A. 7975, even if the offender committed the crime charged in relation retirement and pension funds of those in the military service. Members
to his office but occupies a position corresponding to the salary grade of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National
below 27, the RTC or MTC as the case may be, shall have the Police are expressly excluded from the coverage of The GSIS Act of
exclusive jurisdiction over the case. 1997. Therefore, soldiers and military personnel, who are incidentally
employees of the Government, rely on the administration of the AFP-
Here, the petitioner is occupying a position equivalent to a Police RSBS for their retirement, pension and separation benefits. Its
Senior Inspector which has a salary grade of 23 falling short to the enabling law further mandates that the System shall be administered
requirement of the law, givingthe RTC the exclusive jurisdiction over by the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines through an
the case. agency, group, committee or board, which may be created and
organized by him and subject to such rules and regulations governing
PEOPLE vs.HENRY T. GO, the same as he may, subject to the approval of the Secretary of
National Defense, promulgate from time to time. Moreover, the
Nature: Petition for review on Certiorari assailing the Resolution of the investment of funds of the System shall be decided by the Chief of
Third Division of the Sandiganbayan (SB) which quashed the Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines with the approval of the
Information filed against herein respondent for alleged violation of Secretary of National Defense. The funds of the AFP-RSBS, except for
Section 3 (g) of Republic Act No. 3019 (R.A. 3019), otherwise known the initial seed money, come entirely from contributions and that no
as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. part thereof come from appropriations. While it may be true that there
have been no appropriations for the contribution of funds to the AFP-
Doctrines: RSBS, the Government is not precluded from later on adding to the
• The death of one of two or more conspirators does not funds in order to provide additional benefits to them. The above
prevent the conviction of the survivor or survivors.—Indeed, it is not considerations indicate that the character and operations of the AFP-
necessary to join all alleged co-conspirators in an indictment for RSBS are imbued with public interest. As such, we hold that the same
conspiracy. If two or more persons enter into a conspiracy, any act is a government entity and its funds are in the nature of public funds.
done by any of them pursuant to the agreement is, in contemplation of
law, the act of each of them and they are jointly responsible therefor. People Power vs. Benipayo
This means that everything said, written or done by any of the
conspirators in execution or furtherance of the common purpose is Facts:
deemed to have been said, done, or written by each of them and it Photokina Marketing Inc. filed an affidavit complaint for libel against
makes no difference whether the actual actor is alive or dead, sane or respondent Benipayo, COMELEC Chairman, for allegedly being the
insane at the time of trial. The death of one of two or more conspirators one alluded to by the respondent in his speech at UP Diliman which
does not prevent the conviction of the survivor or survivors. Thus, this was published in Manila Bulletin issues.
Court held that: x x x [a] conspiracy is in its nature a joint offense. One Said speech is as follows: “Now, they are at it again, trying to
person cannot conspire alone. The crime depends upon the joint act or hoodwink us into contract that is so grossly disadvantageous to the
intent of two or more persons. Yet, it does not follow that one person government that it offends common sense to say that it would be worth
cannot be convicted of conspiracy. So long as the acquittal or death of the 6.5 billion-peso price tag.”
a co-conspirator does not remove the bases of a charge for Arguing that he’s an impeachable officer, respondent questioned the
conspiracy, one defendant may be found guilty of the offense. jurisdiction of the Office of the Prosecutor of QC. City prosec. Still filed
• The avowed policy of the State and the legislative intent to an information for libel against him.
repress “acts of public officers and private persons alike, which Respondent, for his part, moved for the dismissal of the case on the
constitute graft or corrupt practices,” would be frustrated if the death of assertion that the trial court had no jurisdiction over his person for he
a public officer would bar the prosecution of a private person who was an impeachable officer and thus, could not be criminally
conspired with such public officer in violating the Anti-Graft Law.—The prosecuted before any court during his incumbency; and that,
Court agrees with petitioner that the avowed policy of the State and the assuming he can be criminally prosecuted, it was the Office of the
legislative intent to repress “acts of public officers and private persons Ombudsman that should investigate him and the case should be filed
alike, which constitute graft or corrupt practices,” would be frustrated if with the Sandiganbayan.
the death of a public officer would bar the prosecution of a private Trial court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction considering that
person who conspired with such public officer in violating the Anti-Graft the alleged libel was committed by respondent in relation to his office
Law. when he delivered speech in his official capacity as COMELEC Chair.
Accordingly, it was the Sandiganbayan that had jurisdiction over the
Ramiscal vs. Sandiganbayan case to the exclusion of all other courts.
. On motion for reconsideration, the trial court adhered to its ruling that it
was not vested with jurisdiction to hear the libel case.
Facts: ISSUE:
Jose S. Ramiscal Jr., Julian Alzaga, Manuel Satuito, Elizabeth Liang Whether the respondent committed the crime of libel in relation to his
and Jesus Garcia were charged with Malversation through Falsification office and that the trial court is correct in saying that it has no
of Public Documents before the Sandiganbayan. The Information jurisdiction over the case?
alleged that Ramiscal, et. al. misappropriated and converted the HELD:
amount of P250,318,200.00 for their personal use from the funds of Criminal and civil actions for damages in cases of written defamations
AFP-RSBS.Ramiscal filed with the Sandiganbayan an “Urgent Motion shall be filed simultaneously or separately with the RTC to the
to Declare Nullity of Information and to Defer Issuance of Warrant of exclusion of all other courts. A subsequent enactment of a law defining
Arrest.” He argued, that the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the jurisdiction of other courts cannot simply override, in the absence
the case because the AFP-RSBS is a private entity. The said Urgent of an express repeal or modification, the specific provision in the RPC
Motion was later adopted by Alzaga and Satuito. The Urgent Motion vesting in the RTC, as aforesaid, jurisdiction over defamations in
was denied by the Sandiganbayan. Ramiscal, et. al. filed a Motion for writing or by similar means. The grant to the Sandiganbayan of
jurisdiction over offenses committed in relation to (public) office, similar ISSUE: 1) WON the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the case. 2)
to the expansion of the jurisdiction of the MTCs, did not divest the RTC WON the unlawful arrest of the accused resulted in the failure to
of its exclusive and original jurisdiction to try written defamation cases acquired jurisdiction over his person.
regardless of whether the offense is committed in relation to office. The
broad and general phraseology of Section 4, Presidential Decree No. HELD: 1) NO. The crime of rape with homicide does not fall under the
1606, as amended by Republic Act No. 8249, cannot be construed to jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan as it obviously does not fall under
have impliedly repealed, or even simply modified, such exclusive and paragraph (1), which deals with graft and corruption cases. Neither is it
original jurisdiction of the RTC. covered by paragraph (2) because it is not an offense committed in
Since jurisdiction over written defamations exclusively rests in the RTC relation to the office of the petitioner. There is no direct relation
without qualification, it is unnecessary and futile for the parties to argue between the commission of the crime of rape with homicide and the
on whether the crime is committed in relation to office. Thus, the petitioner's office as municipal mayor because public office is not an
conclusion reached by the trial court that the respondent committed the essential element of the crime charged. The offense can stand
alleged libelous acts in relation to his office as former COMELEC chair, independently of the office. Moreover, it is not even alleged in the
and deprives it of jurisdiction to try the case, is, following the above information that the commission of the crime charged was intimately
disquisition, gross error. connected with the performance of the petitioner's official functions to
make it fall under the exception laid down in People v. Montejo. In that
Lacson vs Executive Secretary case, a city mayor and several detectives were charged with murder
for the death of a suspect as a result of a "third degree" investigation
Issue: Whether or not jurisdiction of the court is determined by held at a police substation.The Court held that, although public office is
evidence and not allegation? not an element of the crime of murder in abstract, the offense therein
charged is intimately connected with their respective offices and was
Held: No. The jurisdiction of the court over criminal cases is perpetrated while they were in the performance, though improper or
determined by the allegations of the complaint or information and once irregular, of their official functions. Indeed they had no personal motive
it is shown, the court may validly take cognizance of the case. to commit the crime and they would not have committed it had they not
held their aforesaid offices.
Hence, it’s elementary rule that the jurisdiction of the court is
determined by the allegations in the complaint or information, and not 2) NO. Even on the assumption that no warrant was issued at all, we
by the evidence presented by the parties at the trial. find that the trial court still lawfully acquired jurisdiction over the person
of the petitioner. The rule is that if the accused objects to the
jurisdiction of the court over his person, he may move to quash the
ANTONIO L. SANCHEZ, petitioner vs The Honorable HARRIET O. information, but only on that ground. If, as in this case, the accused
raises other grounds in the motion to quash, he is deemed to have
Doctrines: “The crime of rape with homicide imputed to the petitioner waived that objection and to have submitted his person to the
was not connected with the discharge of his functions as municipal jurisdiction of that court. The Court also adverts to its uniform ruling
mayor nor that there is an "intimate connection" between the offense that the filing of charges, and the issuance of the corresponding
and his office. It follows that the said crime, being an ordinary offense, warrant of arrest, against a person invalidly detained will cure the
is triable by the regular courts and not the Sandiganbayan.” defect of that detention or at least deny him the right to be released
“The rule is that if the accused objects to the jurisdiction of the court because of such defect.
over his person, he may move to quash the information, but only on
that ground. If, as in this case, the accused raises other grounds in the RULE 110 – Prosecution of offences
motion to quash, he is deemed to have waived that objection and to
have submitted his person to the jurisdiction of that court.”
“The issuance of the corresponding warrant of arrest, against a person Antipakuto vs Sorongon
invalidly detained will cure the defect of that detention or at least deny
him the right to be released because of such defect.” Facts:
Jimenez(Petitioner) is the president of Unlad Shipping and
FACTS: Seven Informations of Rape with Homicide were filed against Management Corporation a local manning agency, while Antzoulatos,
Mayor Antonio L. Sanchez of Calauan Laguna and six other persons in Alamil, Gaza and Avgoustis are the respondents herein and are some
connection with the rape-slay of Mary Eileen Sarmenta and the killing of the listed incorporators of Tsakos Maritime Services Inc, a local
of Allan Gomez. manning agency
Acting on the request of the Presidential Anti-Crime Commission, the Aug. 19, 2013, Petitioner files a complaint affidavid with the office of
panel of State Prosecutors of the Department of Justice conducted a the prosecutor of Mandaluyong city against the respondents for
preliminary investigation. Sanchez was not present but he was syndicated and large scale illegal recruitment.
represented by Atty. Brion. An “invitation” issued by PNP Commander Respondents Antzoulatos and Gaza filed their joint counter-affidavit
Rex Piad was also served on Sanchez and he was immediately taken and denying the complaint. Avgoustis and Alamil did not submit any
to Camp Vicente Lim. Sanchez was placed on “arrest status” upon the counter affidavit.
positive identification by Centeno and SPO3 Malabanan that Sanchez An Information for the said crime was filed before the RTC-
was the principal in the rape-slay case. The respondent prosecutors Mandaluyong.
conducted an inquest upon Sanchez’ arrival, with Atty. Panelo as his Dec. 4, 2004 the prosecutor filed a motion to withdraw the information
counsel. After the hearing, a warrant of arrest was served on Sanchez and respondents Antzoulatos and Gaza filed their comment to the
in connection with a criminal case for violation of RA 6713. The opposition however the judge denied the motion as it found existence
Informations for Rape with Homicide were filed in RTC Laguna and of probable cause and issued warrants agains the respondents.
warrants of arrest were issued against all of the accused. The venue of Respondent Alamil filed a motion for judicial determination of probable
the case was then transferred to Pasig, Metro Manila upon the cause to defer the enforcement of the warrants or arrest.
expressed apprehension of the Secretary of Justice. Petitioner filed his opposition with the motion to expunge, contending
Sanchez filed a Motion to Quash on the following grounds: 1) he was that Alamil being a fugitive from justice had no standing to seek any
denied the right to present evidence at the preliminary investigation; 2) relief and that the RTC found probable cause.
only the Ombudsman had the competence to conduct the Respondent filed a motion for inhibition against Judge Umali for being
investigation; 3) his warrantless arrest is illegal and the court has biased or partial. The said judge voluntarily inhibit herself and the case
therefore not acquired jurisdiction over him, 4) he is being charged with was re-raffled to Judge Sorongon.
seven homicides arising from the death of only two persons; 5) the On April 3, 2006, the petitioner moved for reconsideration, stressing
informations are discriminatory because they do not include Teofilo the existence of probable cause to prosecute the respondents.
Alqueza and Edgardo Lavadia; and 6) as a public officer, he can be On April 26, 2006 moved to expunge the motion for being prohibited
tried for the offense only by the Sandiganbayan. pleading since the motion did not have any conformity from the city
The Motion to Quash was denied. Hence, this petition. prosecutor.
In its May 10, 2006 order, the RTC denied the petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration, finding that the petitioner merely reiterated arguments
in issues that had been finally decided.
On May 30, 2006, respondent Alamil moved to expunge the Treachery is the employment of means, methods, or forms in the
petitioner’s notice of appeal since the public prosecutor did not execution of any of the crimes against persons which tend to directly
authorize the appeal and the petitioner had no civil interest in the case and specially insure its execution, without risk to the offending party
On June 27, 2006, the petitioner filed his comment to the motion to arising from the defense which the offended party might make. It
expunge, claiming that, as the offended party, he has the right to encompasses a wide variety of actions and attendant circumstances,
appeal the RTC order dismissing the case; the respondents’ fraudulent the appreciation of which is particular to a crime committed. Corollarily,
acts in forming TMSI greatly prejudiced him. the defense against the appreciation of a circumstance as aggravating
or qualifying is also varied and dependent on each particular instance.
Issue: WoN the Petitioner has the legal personality to assail the Such variety generates the actual need for the State to specifically
dismissal of the case aver the factual circumstances or particular acts that constitute the
criminal conduct or that qualify or aggravate the liability for the crime in
Held: No. It is well settled that the real party in interest is the People of the interest of affording the accused sufficient notice to defend himself.
the Philippines and is represented by the prosecutors. All criminal
actions commenced by complaint or by information shall be prosecuted It cannot be otherwise, for, indeed, the real nature of the criminal
under the direction and control of a public prosecutor. In appeals of charge is determined not from the caption or preamble of the
criminal cases before the Court of Appeals and before this Court, the information, or from the specification of the provision of law alleged to
Office of the Solicitor General is the appellate counsel of the People; have been violated, which are mere conclusions of law, but by the
The People is the real party in interest in a criminal case and only the actual recital of the facts in the complaint or information.28 In People v.
Office of the Solicitor General can represent the People in criminal Dimaano,29 the Court elaborated: For complaint or information to be
proceedings pending in the Court of Appeals or in the Supreme Court sufficient, it must state the name of the accused; the designation of the
offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as
PEOPLE VS VALDEZ constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the
approximate time of the commission of the offense, and the place
wherein the offense was committed. What is controlling is not the title
FACTS: of the complaint, nor the designation of the offense charged or the
On March 1, 2000, at around 8:00 o’clock in the evening, Estrella particular law or part thereof allegedly violated, these being mere
Sayson, (Estrella) was at the canteen (which also includes a jai alai conclusions of law made by the prosecutor, but the description of the
betting station) located at 77 Corregidor Street, Bago Bantay, Quezon crime charged and the particular facts therein recited. The acts or
City. Estrella was preparing for the celebration of the birthday of her omissions complained of must be alleged in such form as is sufficient
second husband, Wilfredo Lladones, which was held later in the to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is
evening. Estrella’s son, the deceased Moises Sayson, a former intended to be charged, and enable the court to pronounce proper
policeman, and his wife, Susan Sayson (Susan) owned the said judgment. No information for a crime will be sufficient if it does not
canteen and managed the betting station. At about 9:00 o’clock in the accurately and clearly allege the elements of the crime charged. Every
evening, Estrella’s other sons Joselito Sayson (Joselito) and Ferdinand element of the offense must be stated in the information. What facts
Sayson (Ferdinand) arrived at the canteen to greet their stepfather. and circumstances are necessary to be included therein must be
Estrella’s family and other visitors ate and enjoyed themselves at the determined by reference to the definitions and essentials of the
party. specified crimes. The requirement of alleging the elements of a crime
in the information is to inform the accused of the nature of the
At about 10:00 o’clock in the evening, the celebration was interrupted accusation against him so as to enable him to suitably prepare his
with the arrival of Eduardo and Edwin, who alighted from a motorcycle defense. The presumption is that the accused has no independent
in front of the jai alai fronton. Eduardo and Edwin asked the jai alai knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense.
teller, Jonathan Rubio (Jonathan), to come out. Jonathan was then
attending to customers who were buying jai alai tickets. Moises Miguel vs Sandiganbayan
approached Eduardo and Edwin and tried to reason with them. Estrella
saw Eduardo and Edwin armed with guns. She tried to prevent Moises Facts:
from going near Edwin and Eduardo. Moises did not heed his mother’s
warning. He went out and advised Eduardo and Edwin not to force • Then Vice Mayor Mercelita M. Lucido and other local officials
Jonathan to go out of the fronton. Estrella then heard one of the of Koronadal City, South Cotabato filed a letter-complaint with the
accused-appellants threaten Moises with the words “Gusto mo unahin Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao charging the petitioner, among
na kita?” Moises replied “huwag.” Successive shots were thereafter others, with violation of Republic Act No. 3019, in connection with the
heard. Moises fell and was continuously fired upon even after he was consultancy services for the architectural aspect, the engineering
sprawled on the ground. Ferdinand immediately approached the scene design, and the construction supervision and management of the
to help his brother Moises. Ferdinand, however was shot on the left proposed Koronadal City public market.
temporal portion of his head and fell. Somebody told Joselito to run • In a resolution, the Ombudsman found probable cause
away, but he was hit at the back while running. Joselito fell on a burger against the petitioner and some private individuals for violation of R.A.
machine. After shooting the Sayson brothers, Eduardo and Edwin No. 3019 and against the petitioner alone for Falsification of Public
escaped from the scene of the crime (p. 10, TSN, February 6, 2001). Document under Article 171, par. 4 of the Revised Penal Code. It filed
the corresponding informations with the Sandiganbayan. The
The RTC convicted the two accused of three counts of murder and information for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 reads:
sentenced them to suffer reclusion perpetua for each count of murder. o That on 10 January 1995 or sometime prior or subsequent
thereto, in the Municipality of Koronadal, South Cotabato, Philippines,
On appeal, the CA affirmed the convictions. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the [petitioner], a
high ranking public officer in his capacity as former Municipal Mayor of
In this appeal, PO2 Valdez assails the credibility of the State’s Koronadal, South Cotabato, and as such while in the performance of
witnesses by pointing to inconsistencies and weaknesses in their his official functions, committing the offense in relation to his office,
testimonies; challenges the finding of conspiracy between the accused; taking advantage of his official position, conspiring and confederating
and contends that the State did not establish the qualifying with the private [individuals] xxx acting with evident bad faith and
circumstance of treachery. manifest partiality, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally
give unwarranted benefits and advantages to said [accused], by
ISSUE: Whether or not the prosecution sufficiently established the inviting them to participate in the prequalification of consultants to
qualifying circumstance of treachery. provide the Detailed Architectural & Engineering Design and
Construction Supervision and Management of the proposed Koronadal
HELD: NO. Public Market, without causing the publication of said invitation in a
RATIO: newspaper of general circulation, thereby excluding other consultants
it is unavoidable for the Court to pronounce PO2 Valdez guilty of three from participating in said prequalification.
homicides, instead of three murders, on account of the informations • On motions separately filed by two of the petitioner’s co-
not sufficiently alleging the attendance of treachery. accused, the Sandiganbayan ordered the Office of the Special
Prosecutor to conduct a reinvestigation. Later, the petitioner, through
counsel, followed suit and orally moved for a reinvestigation, which the the proceedings and examination of the witness, it was found out that
Sandiganbayan likewise granted. The Sandiganbayan gave the the identification of the victim by the respondent was in reliance to her
petitioner ten (10) days within which to file his counter-affidavit with the brother’s statement that he saw that it was their father who committed
OSP. the act. The medico legal was also presented with the findings that the
• Later, Prosecutor Ruiz asked the Sandiganbayan for the hymen of the victim is intact. These statements were invoked by the
arraignment and trial of the petitioner and of the other accused private defense to question the findings of the trial court of the offense
individuals. charged which was later affirmed by the appellate court, hence, this
• After several extensions sought and granted, the petitioner appeal.
filed a Motion to Quash and/or Reinvestigation for the criminal cases
against him. The Sandiganbayan denied the petitioner’s motion Issue: Whether or not the offense was properly charged.
because of the pending OSP reinvestigation – this, despite the OSP’s
earlier termination of the reinvestigation for the petitioner’s continuous Held: No. The following are the elements of rape by sexual
failure to submit his counter-affidavit. The petitioner did not question assault:
the denial of his motion.
• The petitioner was arraigned; he pleaded not guilty in both (1) That the offender commits an act of sexual assault;
criminal cases. Later, the OSP filed a Motion to Suspend [the (2) That the act of sexual assault is committed by any of the
petitioner] Pendente Lite. On June 27, 2005, the petitioner filed his following means:
"Vigorous Opposition" based on the "obvious and fatal defect of the
[i]nformation" in failing to allege that the giving of unwarranted benefits (a) By inserting his penis into another person’s mouth or anal
and advantages was done through manifest partiality, evident bad faith orifice; or
or gross inexcusable negligence. (b) By inserting any instrument or object into the genital or anal
• On January 25, 2006, the Sandiganbayan promulgated the orifice of another person;
assailed resolution suspending the petitioner pendente lite.
• On February 2, 2006, the petitioner moved for (3) That the act of sexual assault is accomplished under any of
reconsideration of his suspension order and demanded for a pre- the following circumstances:
suspension hearing. The Sandiganbayan denied his motion, prompting
him to file this certiorari petition to challenge the validity of his (a) By using force and intimidation;
suspension order. (b) When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise
• The petitioner bewails the lack of hearing before the unconscious; or
issuance of his suspension order. Citing Luciano, et al. v. Hon. (c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of
Mariano, etc., et al. he claims that nowhere in the records of the case authority; or
can one see any order or resolution requiring the petitioner to show (d) When the woman is under 12 years of age or demented.
cause at a specific date of hearing why he should not be ordered
suspended. For the petitioner, the requirement of a pre-suspension In the instant case, it was clearly established that appellant
hearing can only be satisfied if the Sandiganbayan ordered an actual committed an act of sexual assault on “AAA” by inserting an
hearing to settle the defect in the information. instrument or object into her genital. We find it inconsequential that
“AAA” could not specifically identify the particular instrument or
object that was inserted into her genital. What is important and
Issue: relevant is that indeed something was inserted into her vagina. To
• Whether the absence of an actual pre-suspension hearing require “AAA” to identify the instrument or object that was
renders invalid the suspension order against the petitioner. inserted into her vagina would be contrary to the fundamental
Ruling: tenets of due process. It would be akin to requiring “AAA” to
• Since a pre-suspension hearing is basically a due process establish something that is not even required by law. [Moreover,
requirement, when an accused public official is given an adequate it might create problems later on in the application of the law if
opportunity to be heard on his possible defenses against the the victim is blind or otherwise unconscious.] Moreover, the
mandatory suspension under R.A. No. 3019, then an accused would prosecution satisfactorily established that appellant accomplished
have no reason to complain that no actual hearing was conducted. the act of sexual assault through his moral ascendancy and
• It is well settled that to be heard does not only mean oral influence over “AAA” which substituted for violence and
arguments in court; one may be heard also through pleadings. Where intimidation. Thus, there is no doubt that appellant raped “AAA”
opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, by sexual assault.
has been accorded, no denial of procedural due process exist.
• In the present case, the petitioner (i) filed his Vigorous The failure of “AAA” to mention that her panty was removed prior to
Opposition (to the OSPs Motion to Suspend Accused Pendente Lite), the rape does not preclude sexual assault. We cannot likewise
and after receiving an adverse ruling from the Sandiganbayan, (ii) give credence to the assertion of appellant that the crime of rape
moved for reconsideration of the suspension order issued against him, was negated by the medical findings of an intact hymen or absence
and (iii) filed a Reply to the OSPs Opposition to his plea for of lacerations in the vagina of “AAA”. Hymenal rupture, vaginal
reconsideration. Given this opportunity, we find that the petitioners laceration or genital injury is not indispensable because the same
continued demand for the conduct of an actual pre-suspension hearing is not an element of the crime of rape. “An intact hymen does not
based on the same alleged defect in the information, which we have negate a finding that the victim was raped.” Here, the finding of
found wanting has legally nothing to anchor itself on. reddish discoloration of the hymen of “AAA” during her medical
• Lest it be forgotten, Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019 reinforces examination and the intense pain she felt in her vagina during and
the principle enshrined in the Constitution that a public office is a public after the sexual assault sufficiently corroborated her testimony that
trust. In light of the constitutional principle underlying the imposition of she was raped.
preventive suspension of a public officer charged under a valid
information and the nature of this suspension, the petitioners demand Likewise undeserving of credence is appellant’s contention that his
for a trial-type hearing in the present case would only overwhelmingly wife merely instigated “AAA” to file the charge of rape against him
frustrate, rather than promote, the orderly and speedy dispensation of in retaliation for his having confronted her about her illicit affair
justice. with another man. This imputation of ill motive is flimsy
considering that it is unnatural for appellant’s wife to stoop so low
PEOPLE VS SORIA as to subject her own daughter to the hardships and shame
concomitant with a prosecution for rape, just to assuage her hurt
Facts: A complaint for rape was filed against the respondent for feelings. It is also improbable for appellant’s wife to have dared
allegedly raping her minor daughter, AAA. The information indicated encourage their daughter “AAA” to publicly expose the dishonor of
the offense as rape by sexual intercourse as defined by the Revised the family unless the rape was indeed committed.
Penal Code. However, respondent as his defense invoked that as the
father of the child he will not be able to do the imputed act and the
case was tainted with bad faith on the part of the victim’s mother not UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PEOPLE OF THE
having a good relationship with the respondent. During the course of PHILIPPINES.
Desi Tomas was charged in court for perjury when she falsely declared
under oath in the Certificate against Forum Shopping. Tomas filed a
motion to quash citing that the Makati MTC has no jurisdiction as the
document was submitted and used in Pasay and that there was no
crime committed as not all of the elements of perjury was present.

The lower courts denied the motion saying that Makati has jurisdiction
as it was notarized there and ruled that she was sufficiently charged
with perjury.

ISSUE: Whether, in a crime of perjury, the proper venue is where it


was notarized or where it was used.

RULING:

The SC ruled that Makati was the right venue.

The SC cites Rule 110, Sec. 15 of the Rules of Court where it was
stated that criminal action shall be instituted where the offense was
committed or where any of its essential elements occurred.

The SC, one-by-one stated the elements of perjury and provided that
Tomas did all things in Makati, thus making Makati the right venue for
the case.